Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 25, 2023

Dela Calzada v. Covello

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:23-cv-00030
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dela Calzada v. Covello, Judge Orrick dismissed Dela Calzada’s habeas petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition.

Who this affects

Jovencio Dela Calzada’s federal challenge to his California state-court judgment was dismissed; judgment was entered in favor of Patrick Covello.

What happened

In Dela Calzada v. Covello, Jovencio Dela Calzada challenged the same 2011 California convictions and sentence that he had challenged in an earlier federal petition.

The earlier petition was denied on its merits, and the appeals court denied his request for permission to appeal. Dela Calzada had not obtained the appeals court’s authorization required to file another petition challenging the same state-court judgment.

The court dismissed the petition as second or successive, ordered judgment for Patrick Covello, closed the case, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Dela Calzada v. Covello · No. 3:23-cv-00030
Judge
William Orrick
Date
May 25, 2023

Background

Jovencio Dela Calzada filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the same California state-court judgment that he challenged in an earlier federal habeas action. The judgment involved 2011 convictions in Contra Costa Superior Court for multiple sexual offenses against two of his stepdaughters and a sentence of 173 years to life in state prison.

The earlier petition was denied on the merits. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later denied Dela Calzada’s request for a certificate of appealability.

Reason for Dismissal

The court held that the current petition was a second or successive petition because it challenged the same state-court judgment as the earlier petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a petitioner must obtain authorization from the court of appeals before filing a second or successive petition in the district court. The court stated that, without that authorization, it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. Dela Calzada had not shown that he received the required authorization.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the petition as second or successive and unauthorized by the Court of Appeals. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Patrick Covello, and ordered the file closed. Judge William H. Orrick issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.